Before most tank builds would max out dust storm and victory rush, and have 1 point left over to put in momentum to unlock t2 def abilities. Now they'll max out dust storm and victory rush, but not have the 1 point left over. For tanks, it's a noop if you put 3 points in momentum (dust storm's necessary). It's a nerf if you put 1 point in momentum. For dps, it's a buff because dust storm isn't particularly required.

The notes are different from what's currently on the ptr. Commanding awe still gives the 4% damage reduction, but gives an additional dr increase when force defense (or whatever that thing is) is activated. Protector seems to be gone completely. Blade barrier's low enough in the def tree to snag it along with the cd reduction on Blade Storm and the crit increase after overhead slash. The trade-off is now shield spec vs. a 9s blade storm + all the rest of the vig jazz, which might make the hybrid spec even stronger against the def one.

Lightning Strike is energy damage. I believe Soa's default attack (he shoots lightning at you) is energy as well. You can't infer the damage type based on animation in this game.

I don't think we can definitively know the damage type splits w/o combat logs. That said, the feel I've gotten is internal/elemental damage is used on avoidable things, while kinetic/energy is used for unavoidable things. DoTs (healers need to cleanse) seems to be internal, and fire/ground splotches (people need to move out of) seem to be elemental. Basic attacks & abilities seem to be kinetic or energy, based on whichever weapon/ability the mob is using. The feeling's based purely on asking how much different things are hitting non-tanks for, compared to me. You see a ~30%+ difference in damage, then the source is going to be energy/kinetic. You see a ~5-10% difference in damage, then the source is going to be internal/elemental. Until we get combat logs or can set the color of the fly-text on a damage-type basis, that's about the best we can do. As far as effectivity goes -- absolutely nothing currently in this game will smash a tank to the point where the difference (one way or the other) will matter. Threat is a wash, too, since tank threat is balanced around keeping taunt on cd for the first minute or so in the fight (at which point you probably have enough threat to hold it for the rest of the encounter). Damage is significantly higher (1.5 - 2 times on my tests) in the hybrid-vig spec, so if that matters for your group, then that's the way to go. If not, then pick the rotation/perks you like and stick with it.

Ugg, no. I'm of the belief that the tank should fight for threat (unlike current WoW), but played well shouldn't have to rely on taunt to hold aggro (unlike current SWTOR). This way the tanks rotation/skill actually matters for something, instead of just having to press a single button to lol-tank the whole night. Sorry, the idea of coordinating dps bursts around taunt's cd just makes my stomach turn.

I can't fault a dps for taking aggro if the game doesn't provide them with sufficient information on where they stand wrt the tank. Also, Bioware tried to make the current content tier "hard" with enrage timers. If this trend continues, then the need for threat meters will only increase -- you can't ask dps to maximize their output and not pull threat without giving them any in-game mechanism to know where they stand on the aggro table. Asking them to sit idle for a few seconds after they land a crit string is completely counter-productive to their role, especially if it's unnecessary.

Surge is probably the worst stat you can have on it, though, save even more accuracy. If you're running the straight def spec, your crit rate will be around 13%. Making those seven crits you do in a fight hit for 5% harder isn't going to effect anything. You'll get slightly more benefit out of it using the hybrid def/vig spec (~73% crit chance on Blade Storm), but my guess is power would be a lot better for threat. I just swapped the surge enhancements out for better itemized columi-level ones.

The "scientific analysis" is going to happen regardless. When people ask for dps, healing and thread meters, they're asking for more insight into the game's fundamental mechanics so they can better understand what's happening (or happened) in the fight. Did the boss look away because of an aggro drop? A random aggro ability? Or did a dps just get an early crit string and pull focus from the tank? Right now a significant number of tanks believe threat in this game is completely whacked, but we have no way of knowing for sure. Instead we just hit taunt whenever the mob looks at another player, which works because all content requires 1-tank. If taunt becomes a core mechanic to a fight (ex: tank swaps), then this could cause a lot of problems. You're trying new content, but keep hitting the enrage timer on the boss. That means the group needs more dps, but from who? Everyone has their own numbers, but no reference point to know whether it's "good" or "bad." Instead the group just kicks out the lesser geared player (or goes out to Belsavis to figure out dps against big mobs) because that's all they have to go on. I play a tank. I always know what killed me -- I took more damage than I have life without getting healed. Knowing what killed me isn't going to change anything. I need to know the sequence of leading up to my death. Were the healers doing something else and neglecting me for 30+ seconds? Did I miss a cd against a hard hitting ability? Was I standing in the invisible fire too long? Did I happen to get crit a few seconds before a big, unavoidable hit? Did the boss enrage, or gain a buff that should have been dispelled? All fundamental questions the can be answered by a combat log (also ones we've had in-game), but turn this into a giant guessing game (with bugs!) because it lacks proper feedback. People demonize these logs & meters because jerks use them poorly. Hate to break it to you, but jerks will be jerks whether you give them the tools or not. The solution is to not play with those people, instead of tying the hands of the other 95% of people playing the game. Some people enjoy challenges and obstacles. That's why games have difficulty settings.

Our first attempt last night on hm had him seemingly one-shotting everyone he hit before he even did a ground pound. We called the wipe when three were down. Four of the remaining five grouped up, then were all simultaneously one-shot from full health in a single swipe. This is in more than half rakata/half columi gear, so that's a lot of health. Next attempt went normal and we blasted him as usual. We've had that happen before. Just have to get out & reset it, and it's usually fine on the next run.

This is what it looks like in my game. Everything's greyed out/unavailable the entire time in combat. You see the gcd flash, but it always looks like every ability is on cd constantly.

Taunt has no base threat, which means if you jump in & immediately taunt everything on the pull you're only going to get their focus for 6s. The healer will still pull off of you once the focus grab is done. You need to use it after others have built some threat on the targets in order for it to be somewhat effective. If you're at the top of the aggro list (something we can't tell at the moment), taunt (probably) gives you no threat. Generally, taunt's behave by either setting your threat equal to the highest person's threat on the list, or by giving you the difference between your position and the highest person. SWTOR's seems to be one of those two, with a possibility of an interesting twist for that second case. Those two things can lead people to conclude taunt has no threat, because in the easiest/frequent cases it behaves as if it has no threat. Based on the test I did, it kind of seemed like SWTOR might be giving you the difference between your threat value and the top person's threat value, multiplied by the soresu form bonus. If that's the case, then SWTOR's taunt is even more aggressive than other MMO's (or bugged). The tests for these are pretty simple -- same basic setup, but have the dps burn down 20%, have the tank burn down 10% (in a dps stance), taunt (in tank stance), wait 30s, then have the dps burn down until focus is re-established. From there you can get a wag at how much threat was generated/acquired after correcting for the 1.1/1.3 focus-changing multipliers.

Blade Storm has a 9s cd with the vig-hybrid spec. With a base 15% crit rate, you expect to get 3 Blade Storm crits in a 5-minute fight using the def build. The vig-hybrid build yields 25. Also, you don't automatically get a 3-stack of Courage when you def proc once -- you get one Courage buff per def proc. You need 3 def procs in a <15s window in order to get a 3-stack of Courage, like the sw analysis assumes. Mobs seem to hit at a ~2s frequency, so the probability of seeing 3 stacks on one 15s window is ~44%. The probability of seeing 3 stacks in every 15 second time frame in a 5m fight is around 0.000007%. You are not more likely to see one crit from Blade Storm using the vig-hybrid spec than seeing 3-stacks of Courage every time Force Sweep is up.

In the same paragraph, you dismiss a 15% chance versus a 75% chance as insignificant because "crits can happen in both specs," yet claim three defensive procs (~30% chance for one) in less than a 12s window "is extremely common." You realize how inconsistent that statement is, right? What facts? Have you even tried the build? The only reason I stick with the vig-hybrid build is because every single person I group with insisted I do. That's how big of a difference it is between the two builds. How is that selfish?

The sithwarrior analysis you linked was simple spreadsheet math that assumed no randomness. Randomness in favor of the Defensive build (ex: Courage procs always being at 3 stacks whenever Force Sweep is used) tended to be biased in favor of the build. Randomness in favor of the hybrid-vig build (ex: Blade Storm crits) were assumed zero, even if the build has a +60% increased chance of occurring. Anyone who has played both specs knows both of those assumptions are strictly invalid. The focus usage of the def build is incredibly unpredictable/volatile based on those procs. Also, the vig build has a 75% crit rate with high end gear on blade storm, so that additional damage is not insignificant (especially with the 9s cd). Shield & defensive chances were assumed straight multiplicative across the damage types. Again, not exactly true. He also assumed a play-style for the hybrid build that isn't exactly realized in-game, just to put it at a further disadvantage. Yet, his results still favored the vig build, at which point he dismissed them with some unsupported handwaving that assumes the build is critically dependent on playing leap-frog -- something that's also not true. The reason the vig-hybrid build is viable is because tank damage isn't a huge concern in fp's, hm fp's, or normal/hm 8-man ops (I can't speak to 16m ops), and the damage (+threat) output is substantially greater. The threat generation of the defensive build is absolutely terrible and is dependent on taunt* being part of your rotation to maintain aggro. The vig build has significantly more dps, which directly equates to threat because we have no real "high threat" abilities (our only one is on a 1m cd, making it one of our worst tps abilities on anything that matters). I've played both, and I'm currently running the vig hybrid build because it works better for my ops group. My survivability is not a concern -- threat and raid dps is. This is where the vig-hybrid build shines, and why I'm still using it. The Guadian's threat problems stem from absolutely abysmal gear scaling (we only increase strength with better gear) coupled with no "high threat" abilities that are core to the rotation. Something on a 1m cd is not core to the rotation, and the extra abilities you can use after it aren't even useable on stronger mobs. *Yes, taunt gives you threat based on who is on top of the aggro table. None if you are (the focus target isn't necessarily the top person on the aggro table), but it does give you at least the difference between the person on top and you. Just test it out.

Force healing scales based on willpower & power, not strength.

I tested this the other day, and what you say doesn't appear to be true. Taunt gives you at least the threat difference between you and the highest person on the aggro table. A guildie mdps and I went out to Belsavis to find a lvl 50 gold-star mob. He burned the mob down to ~40%, stopped attacking, and I taunted. I never used another ability. After a minute the mob was still attacking me. The mdps then started attacking the mob again, and he didn't regain the mob's attention until the mob was under 10% -- well below what I expected, given the accepted 1.1x multiplier for melee to pull off a tank. This kind of leads me to believe it might be giving you 1.5 times the difference between the highest aggro and taunter, but I'd have to be more diligent about recording health values at the different points to verify. This test was only designed to answer the question of whether or not taunt imparts any threat to the taunter, which is most certainly does.

Yep. Did nothing but taunt.

He was melee, which is why I thought it was odd, and yeah -- that's why I said 25%. Around 25% would be the 1.1x point, not <10%.

... and I just confirmed with a guildie. We went out to Belsavis. I had him burn down a gold-star mob to ~40% and stop attacking. I taunted once and did nothing else. The mob beat on me for a good minute before he started attacking it again -- much longer than the six seconds it should have if I was still sitting at 0 threat. I did nothing, at all, ever, outside of that one taunt. What's interesting is he didn't take the mob's attention back from me until the last 5-6%, while I would have expected it more at the 25% range if it just set my threat equal to whatever he had generated. It's almost like it set my threat equal to some multiplier (>1.0) over his.

I'm pretty sure taunt does increase your threat, or Jarg & Sorno have some unique mechanic only specific to them. Normal mode ops, we have a range dps tank Jarg and a guard tank Sorno. When the range dps gets carbonized, the guard will taunt Jarg so the next rdps on the list doesn't get splattered. The guard never attacks Jarg, so if there's no threat gained then Jarg should go back onto the next rdps as soon as the six seconds guaranteed focus is up. This doesn't happen. Instead, what happens is the guard holds threat on Jarg (w/o ever attacking him) until the next carbonize (much longer than six seconds), at which point Jarg focuses on another rdps (usually the initial one, because the rest are using their and other aggro drops). The idea that taunt doesn't do anything to the threat table comes straight from the tooltip, I believe, but it's not replicated in game behavior.

I run the 14/27 build, and that's after leveling as Defense like a good little tank. Made the switch after our first few hardmodes, and our very next one every one in the group insisted I do not switch back. Pulls are cleaner (Unremitting) and threat/dps is dramatically increased (at least 1.5x, maybe as much as 2x), which was enough payoff to stick with it. We're now a little over halfway through hm ops, and tank damage hasn't been a problem. Yes, the Defense tree says it's for tanking, but it's predominantly energy management -- not mitigation. In fact, there's only 7 mitigation talents, and 4 of them are within the first three tiers of the tree (and can be had for 14 points). The other 27 points spent with the normal build are for Shield Specialization (+4% shield chance), Blade Barrier (~800 damage shield every 12s based on datamining), and Inner Piece (increased elemental & internal dr by 4%), while picking up a few utility abilities + energy management stuff along the way. That's the basis for the hybrid build. Instead of picking up a bunch of unwanted talents for small gains in mitigation, you dive down into the Vigilance tree and pick up its mitigation talents (Unremitting, Protector, and Commanding Awe) along the way. You're trading 4% increased shield chance and Blade Barrier for cleaner pulls*, 4% increased endurance, 4% increased kinetic & energy dr, and significantly higher dps & threat (1.5-2x as far as I can tell). The build isn't critically dependent on playing froggy, either. You'll likely take more damage on trash (where blade barrier really shines), but on bosses it seems like a wash. The extra threat + dps will help out a lot more when trying to beat enrage timers. Basically, we get the vast majority of our mitigation from gear + soresu form, and talents from deep in the Defense tree (compared to Vig) are in the noise. That said, the whole "spec'ing dps to tank"-thing sits uneasy with me from my WoW days and experience with bad warriors, but (imo) it seems like the best option at this point in SWTOR. I'm keeping an eye on patch notes for any changes (ex: blade barrier scaling with something useful) and incoming damage/survivability issues that might effect raid progress, but so far it's helping more than anything else. *Seems like everything likes to blow all of its abilities immediately after the pull, so there's a lot of knockback + instant interrupt necessary in hm's. With the Def build, you're forced to run in (saber throw removes sprint early), get punted back, saber throw, then jump back in on the pull. With the Vig build, you just saber throw & jump. Plus the 4s 20% dr gives you enough time to apply sweep & reposte's dr's w/o stressing the healer or popping warding.

I'm a little confused by this thread... The problem that is causing the OP's frustration is the flashpoint lockout if you die and can't be ressed in a successful kill on the final boss. This prevents the person from getting any loot. Everyone seems to be bagging on his tanking ability, and some claiming the lockout is a good thing. Is this accurate? People think the flashpoint lockout (and loot loss) is a good thing?

Dave keeps giving me more work. Let's say I gave you a function. I claim it randomly returns the values {1, 2, 3, 4} each with equal probabilities. I implement this function to always return 2, but you don't know that. How many draws do you need to suspect this function isn't behaving as advertised? How many do you need to prove it is mathematically impossible for the function to behave as advertised? If you're going for a 95% confidence, you only requires 5 draws. A 99% confidence only requires 7. To prove it's mathematically impossible you need infinitely many -- something that's not physically possible. Are you going to conclude it must be implemented correctly, because a never ending sequence of 2's is mathematically possible based on how I described a function? No -- that's silly, but it's exactly what you're doing here. Here's a thread where I posted our experiences and associated probabilities from a few days ago : http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=2001546#post2001546 Since then we re-ran False Emp and got another smuggler jacket (which is what prompted Dave's post), and Battle for Ilum (with a slightly different group) and got the Sage off-hand. Claiming this is "not probable" undermines just how unlikely this is, given actual randomness. Seeing this much consistency in drops across multiple flashpoints is less than a 1 in 2.5 million shot. Another way of putting it is, if every single person who purchased the game ran exactly this sequence of hardmode flashpoints, the expected number of times you'd see a sequence this probable (or worse) is less than 0.02. In other words, you have about a 1 in 50 shot of seeing one individual encounter a sequence like this if all 2 million people who purchased SWTOR ran the same number of hm flashpoints as we have. It's also worth noting this estimate is going to be fairly high, since the game hasn't seen 2 million sales yet, and every single person most certainly isn't running hm fp's as frequently as we are. The purpose of this thread is just raising the question -- are other people seeing the same behavior we are? Seems like some are, and some aren't. The fact that others seem to be is an indicator that something might be off with the loot system's function, given how unlikely it is to even see it once. As was mentioned earlier in this thread -- outside of one specific device, there's no true "random" on computers. Pseudo-random number generators are simply recurrence relations that share a set of specific properties with truly random streams. This makes them incredibly difficult to test, and very error prone implementations if you're not extremely careful. Something as simple as seeding the rng with a value that's static relative to the group would give it good behavior relative to the most commonly investigated tests (specifically, repeatedly querying a loot table to verify drops and looking at drop rates across the entire population), but cause exactly this sort of non-random behavior when faced with a static group who runs a few hm's at the same time every night. Using a rng that has poor uniformity at the bit-level can also cause significant swings in the probability of even & odd numbers occurring when used with standard binary encoding that could cause problems depending on if a (0,1) normalization or a modulus is used to bound the results. What I'm getting at is, just because you're told it's random doesn't mean you should blindly believe it just because a sequence is possible. If it's claimed to be random and then behaves significantly differently from the supposed distributions & probabilities, then something else might be up. Now, just to be clear -- we've tried the basic things. We've varied the time we enter the instance (but not much the time we assemble the group), who assembles the group, who loots the container, and who is the "owner"/"leader" of the story-mode. The token drops didn't seem to change. Also, while we haven't sufficiently documented the purple drops leading up to the token, we do notice they tend to be the same 1-3 drops from every boss, and (I believe) we do see completely new stuff when running with very different groups.

Seems like the rng is seeded based on something in the group. Running with the same 4-man hm group every day for the past three weeks, here are our drops : Maelstrom Prison : Jedi Councilor Boots Battle of Ilum : Commando Off-hand False Emperor : Smuggler chest Rise of the Rakghouls : Jedi Knight head (bonus boss), Jedi Councilor head (final boss) False Emp we've run about a dozen times, and only twice did we not see the smuggler chest (both times it was the commando one). Maelstrom Prison we've run three times, Battle of Ilum we've run three times, Rise we've run twice (but saw identical loot off of both bosses). Random is random? Probabilities for these strings assuming uniform distribution on the four tokens... Maelstrom Prison : 3 runs, probability of all three being the same is 1/16 Battle of Ilum : 3 runs, probability of all three being the same 1/16 False Emperor : 12 runs, 10 out of 12 were the same, probability is 0.00015 ("high" estimate, 4 * bindist(0.25, 12, 10) -- does not account for two failures being the same) Rise of the Rakghouls : 2 runs with 2 drops each, probability is 1/16 Based on other threads on this subject, it seems like going with different groups will give you different drops, so it might be something silly like the rng used for loot drops is being seeded with something static in the group.

This auto-assigned loot is so ridiculously stupid. We run with 2 Jedi Knights. The other one has seen 6 tokens so far with two duplicates. I've seen none. Can't pass. Can't transfer. It's downright stupid. Great decision there. The solution to prevent ninja'ing is to make the game automatically ninja stuff. What a joke. EDIT: The system for normal modes was not changed. We're running it now and seeing the same stuff.